ades/taylor v. Pandola
240 Ariz. 543
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother and Father are parents of a child; multiple Illinois support orders exist, including a May 2004 Illinois order requiring Father to pay $1,200/month.
- Father filed a Notice of Registration in Arizona (Aug 14, 2014) with a letter of transmittal and a sworn statement asserting he was unaware of any arrears; service was accepted by Mother’s counsel on Sept 4, 2014.
- ADES submitted arrears calculations showing substantial arrears; ADES later revised its calculation using the $1,200 monthly obligation.
- Mother did not file a timely objection to the registration (deadline Sept 24, 2014) and instead filed later pleadings and a response supporting ADES’s initial calculation.
- The superior court found Mother was properly served, failed to timely object, confirmed the May 2004 order, ruled Father’s arrears were zero as of registration, and awarded Father $7,000 in attorney fees.
- On appeal the court affirmed service and untimeliness, reversed the zero-arrears finding, vacated the fee award, and remanded to determine arrears under the May 2004 Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service of registration notice | Service was improper (clerk delivery insufficient) | Service was proper because Mother’s counsel accepted service Sept 4 | Affirmed: service was proper based on counsel’s acceptance of service |
| Timeliness to object to registration | Prior 2013 filings or October filings preserved/constituted timely objection | Objection deadline ran 20 days from personal service; Mother missed deadline | Affirmed: objection deadline ran from service; Mother’s challenges were untimely |
| Effect of untimely objection on arrears contest | Even if order confirmed, untimely objection should not bar contesting amount of arrears now claimed | Timely objection statute bars contest of alleged arrears; failure to object waives challenge to arrears | Reversed lower court: confirmation of order does not preclude later evidentiary determination of arrearages; remanded to calculate arrears under $1,200/month order |
| Award of attorney fees to Father | Fees were improper given remand and partial reversal | Fees appropriate because Mother’s challenge was unreasonable and untimely | Vacated fee award; remanded; appellate court declined fee awards to either party |
Key Cases Cited
- Glover v. Glover, 231 Ariz. 1 (App. 2012) (registration of foreign support order is required to confer subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Polacke v. Superior Court in and for County of Maricopa, 170 Ariz. 217 (App. 1991) (jurisdiction to determine arrearages flows from court’s authority to enforce the judgment)
- Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401 (App. 2001) (appellate review: defer to trial court factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- In re Reymundo F., 217 Ariz. 588 (App. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Lofts v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, 140 Ariz. 407 (App. 1984) (valid judgment in one state is given effect in another)
- Courtney v. Foster ex rel. County of Maricopa, 235 Ariz. 613 (App. 2014) (use plain statutory language to determine legislative intent)
- Cooper v. Cooper, 167 Ariz. 482 (App. 1990) (view evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the trial court decision)